Commission doesn't want charity definition changed

The head of the Charities Commission does not want New Zealand's definition of `charity' changed under a looming government review, despite accusations that its current criteria are narrow and archaic.

Community groups stripped of their charitable status this week criticised the commission for failing to move with the times  including using a 400-year-old English statute whose charitable purposes include the 'marriage of poor maids' and the 'relief of impotent people'.

Since launching in 2007, the commission has deregistered 1,037 charities, leaving 24,747 remaining. So far, 12 former charities have lodged High Court appeals against the commission's decisions, including Greenpeace and yachting syndicate Team New Zealand.

The row looks set to build as the sector approaches Parliament's overhaul of the Charities Act (2005) in 2015, which could redefine who gets to call themselves a charity.  Having charitable status means groups can apply for grants from big funders such as the Lions Foundation, and are more likely to attract public donations as people can claim a tax refund and may see groups as more worthy. 

Commission chief executive Trevor Garrett said he did not think the meaning of the Act needed changing.

"Right now I can't think of anything that really stands out as being a particularly problem with what we have got. We look at legislation that Parliament's given us, we look at case law, we try to look to see if there's anything that gives us reason to take a different view from case law, or has a particularly New Zealand flavour to it and then we will work with that. Overall I think it seems it's working quite well.''

He acknowledged there were "grey areas'' in the Act but said the commission should retain the right to make its own calls in those situations.

"The difficulty with the definition of charity perhaps is, how do you have something that's going to last for a long time? We've got to keep the flexibility there so we're able to respond.''

Vincent Dickie, a spokesperson for Auckland's Grey Lynn Farmers Market, which has had its charitable status removed because stallholders make money from selling their produce, said the commission was being "unreasonable''.

All public donations went towards running the market and not into individual's pockets, unless they were doing a specific job for the market, he said.

"It ticks so many boxes  it helps our environment, reduces waste, helps our community get together, promotes local economic activity  and yet we were recognised as a profit driven business. Like any non-profit we run on a shoestring. Nothing goes into our private pockets.''

Kelvin Deal, chief executive of the Liberty Trust, one of those appealing the commission's decision to deregister it, said New Zealand should follow the UK's example and broaden its definition of charity. In 2006, the UK government expanded its heads of charity from four to 13.

But Garrett said he had heard anecdotes that "it hasn't really made a lot of change".  Garrett said the High Court appeals would be test cases and it was up to the courts to decide if the commission was interpreting the law correctly. Out of five cases that have been heard, the courts have upheld all the commission's decisions.

He expected the commission to have a "fairly high input" into the Parliamentary review.